Back

ABA Journal

Home

Constitutional Law

En Banc 6th Circuit Overturns Voter-Mandated Affirmative Action Ban in Michigan

Nov 16, 2012, 01:22 pm CST

Comments

So, affirmative action is all about having "equal access to the tools of political change?" That's not the affirmative action that we all know and despise. We the people already have access to the tools of political change - it's called "voting," and voting does not apply to anything that relies on merit to function.

Our judges instead have decided unilaterally that everything is political - our education, our work, all the things that are supposed to be based on merit are now in the domain of those in power. Merit flies out the window when those in power erase it from our lives by their usurpation of the law. We the people are now subject to the will and whim of those who pick and choose who will succeed based on ideology, not on the honest, objective standards that make an economy really work.

Affirmative action is the antithesis of equal access. Affirmative action is the granting of privilege to selected groups of people to be more equal than everybody else. Holding onto power by the arbitrary granting of privilege is now destroying this country by fundamentally corrupting we the people to expect something for nothing if you are the right kind of person. Some people now expect and demand a free job because of their demographics, and perfectly desirable workers are prevented from working with the employers who need them desperately or being educated to do the work our country desperately needs.

No one wants to do business in a socialist country where the only rules are those made by those in power, who can and do change those rules to suit themselves in a heartbeat. Contracts and judges cannot be relied on, and hiring must include those who are incompetent but have the right faces. No thanks, but I'm moving my factory to Shanghai, where I can hire the right people to do the right things to make my product with the quality I want. American is no longer a good place to do business because there is no law, only the ideology of those who rule it with absolute power.

By sunforester on 2012 11 16, 6:31 pm CST

I think this decision is wrong. This effectively turns affirmative action from something that is merely *permissible* under the 14th Amendment (already a dubious concept requiring a departure from the text of the Constitution) to something that is *protected* by it.

By Another Andy on 2012 11 16, 6:56 pm CST

Anyone have the URL for the promised PDF of the opinion handy?

By Walt Fricke on 2012 11 16, 8:21 pm CST

I agree with everything that Sunforester stated in rational, logical and eloquent terms. Having said that let me also state that I am pleased with the outcome of the election and hope the US Supreme Court will do the right thing and toss Affirmative Action in its entirety.

By Rex on 2012 11 17, 3:46 am CST

Legacy admissions is the worst type of affirmative action. For example, George W. Bush was denied admission to Univ. of Texas-Austin School of Law. After a generous donation, George W. Bush found himself admitted to the Harvard Business School's MBA program.

By faddking on 2012 11 17, 11:21 pm CST

A portion of my post got zapped somehow. As I originally wrote, legacy admissions allow alumni and donors to have undue influence over admissions of people who would otherwise not get into the school on academics alone, which is exactly the complaint of those who say that is why affirmative action is bad on the alleged basis that unacademically qualified students get into the school. Money and influence, however, undermine college admissions in a much more invidious manner. That's when I set forth my example of George W. Bush.

By faddking on 2012 11 17, 11:26 pm CST

The majority opinion is depressing when you consider the fact that this should not even be a close legal question.

Good dissent by Judge Gibbons.

By Yankee on 2012 11 18, 5:04 pm CST

Banning racial preference violates the equal protection clause?! Brought to you by the system that declared growing food for personal consumption to be subject to the commerce clause. Only a lawyer/judge/law prof could utter this nonsense with a straight face.

By Exploding Head on 2012 11 18, 6:32 pm CST

Should law firms be forced to hire incompetent graduates based on affirmative action as well?

By tim17 on 2012 11 19, 1:40 pm CST

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.